Another Jury Revolts Against Marijuana Laws, "They felt marijuana should be legalized."

Jacob Sullum shares this incredible story from a defense attorney in Kansas.

I had a jury trial this morning on level 3 possession with intent MJ, level 4 possession drug paraphernalia and level 10 no drug tax stamp. During voir dire, my almost all white, middle-class, middle-aged jury went into full rebellion against the prosecutor stating that they wouldn't convict even if the client's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- almost all of them! They felt marijuana should be legalized, what he does with it is his own business and that the jails are already full of people for this silly charge. Then, when the potential jurors found out that the State wanted him to pay taxes on illegal drugs, they went nuts. One woman from the back said how stupid this was and why are we even here wasting our time. A "suit" from the front said this was the most ridiculous thing he'd ever heard. The prosecutor ended up dismissing the case. Judge gave me a dismissal with prejudice. I'm still laughing my ass off over this one. I have NEVER seen a full on mutiny by an entire jury pool before. Easiest win ever!

In so many ways, the drug war's own exploding unpopularity is poised to become its downfall. Events like this aren't the norm (yet), but the mere threat of insurrection in the courtroom is already an important check against prosecutorial overreach in the war on drugs (in case you were wondering why so many medical marijuana raids never lead to criminal charges).

As the polls continue to turn in favor of reform, the refusal of juries to convict marijuana offenders could quickly become a brutal burden for these drug war boneheads to bear. It's about damn time.

Now this is a interesting dynamic.The juries (just regular citizens) keeps sending the msg to msm,and our elected officials to drop the weed war and still.........they just don't get it.Maybe now some will open their eyes and see the stupidity and change the damn law.It's a no-brainer......

If people who catch Non-violent drug cases demand speedy trials instead of acceptIng plea agreements, it would place a huge strain on the court system in every state. Problem is that Traditionally, defense lawyers have seen it as their duty to advise against recommending jury trials for straightforward drug cases. Trial lawyers are obliged to advocate for the best possible outcome for the client; and, taking a plea generally results in less of a penalty than being sentenced by a judge after losing at trial.
Therefore, any attempt to persuade individuals to take their cases to trial en mass has been a total nonstarter because defendants tend to act according to the advice of their lawyer. However, It would be interesting to see what would happen if more and more potential jurors start refusing to participate--or, better still, accept a seat on the jury only to nulify the charges in deliberations. (In this scenerio a whole lot of time and resources are used to try a case that ends in a hung jury, time and time and time again!) If there were enough unreliable jury pools around the country, defense lawyers would have a legitimate reason based on strategy to recommend taking these cases to trial. If this were to happen it wouldnt take a month before judges across the country would refuse to docket nonviolent drug cases and the house of cards comes crumbling down.
The real beauty of it is that clogging the courts with speedy trial demands doesn't require jury pools to be in widespread agreement in opposition of US drug policy. It doesn't even require a bare majority. All we need is one dedicated juror out of twelve to stand strong for what is right, which is less than 10 percent!

In my Province it is SOP for the defence to not only demand a trial,but a trial by judge and jury.If things get ugly,you still have the option of a guilty plea after a two year wait but if you have a decent shot it's better to toss the dice.I,with my rap sheet,usually take a deal just before trial.I have taken a few to trial with 50/50 results.I think this is ,in large part,responsible for our courts being so hopelessly tied in knots.My old lawyer,now a judge,just threw out a case for taking too long to be adjudicated.I think that this,along with the way our system works and the fact that the judges on the bench now.Saw the abuses of the police in drug cases they took to trial in the old days.I think all this together is part of the reason that BC has a relatively easy going way of dealing with cases of addiction and drugs in general.I was far better off as an addict in this Province than I now am as a pain patient with severe spinal degeneration.I am seriously considering going back to the street.In spite of my condition and the recommendation of two sets of neurosurgeons,all I can access is methadone.A drug I have never had any success with and that I was getting before I was attacked by the virus that destroyed my lumbar spine.I have far more faith in the courts here than in the medical system which is ruled by fear and intimidation and an anti opiate hypocrisy that is astounding.I do,however,understand the fear of the courts in the US.The time they hand out is inhuman and the chances of getting one of these enlightened juries is just too much of a crap shoot.Face it,people get so scared by the prosecution that they kill themselves over pot charges.I agree that everyone should take their case all the way.I also realize that some are so scared they'll do anything to make it stop.This is just another ugly fact about this war on people they call a drug war.Oh,and please don't suggest cannabis.I have tried it,even the Kushes,and it gives me no relief from the severe pain.I wish it did.I had no problem accessing cannabis.

I am really proud of those jurors in Kansas for standing up and telling the government to stop this insane practice of putting people behind bars for using a plant that the creator on this plant..To bad Vern Miller wasnt still putting people away for life they could shove this down his skinny little throat.

You would be surprised at how this thing my pop. I did jury duty a few months ago and marijuana use was involved, not the case. And a when the lawyers ask us about marijuana, nearly the whole jury was for legalization. Being anti-marijuana or hateful against marijuana and marijuana users is already over. The big thing holding people back is that they feel they can't do this in a courtroom. They feel they must follow the rabbit no matter how absurd. Once people wake up to jury nullification and cases like this, more and more Americans forced to do jury duty are going to start taking things into their own hands instead of letting the state give the impression that they have all the power.

This story needs to get out and people have to realize that it is legal to do this and obstruct failed policy in the court room. Hell it might even make jury duty fun. Start a BLOG for people doing jury duty and get the word out.

This is democracy in action.This would never have happened just a few years back but thanks to shows like "the wire" that introduced the idea to the public,it could be a reach around in he prohibitionist US.There have to be a lot of people out there who would never have even considered being on a jury that will now think twice about going in.Then hope you get on a drug jury.Not just cannabis,either.All drug charges are crap and should be negated.When juries stop convicting,the prosecutors will stop laying charges.Even the kid dealing crack is a victim.In a non prohibition system I would like to think a thing like crack would vanish.I can say for sure that nobody ever learned from being sent to prison.At least nothing positive.

How long does a war last when no one plays along? We must all refuse to convict non-violent marijuana cases. How long will the war on marijuana users last, when no jury will convict, & everyone charged with a marijuana crime wants a jury trial? Now that the vast majority of citizens wants the insane war on marijuana users ended. The war on some drug users will be over tomorrow, via the courts. We must spread the word. Insist on a trial by jury. Refuse to convict. War over. Spread the word! Spread the word!

<b>Short answer:</b> Obama is swayed by the interests of his biggest campaign contributors.

</p>

<p>

<b>Long answer:</b> Just one out of many banksters was caught laundering $378.4 Billion of drug cartel money, then fined only $160 Million, an almost insignificant cost of "doing business". That was Wells Fargo/Wachovia. You don't think that this was the only bankster engaged in such practices, do you? Then there are the Military Industrial Complex & Prison Industrial Complex, including LEO unions, that continue to benefit from the "War OF Drugs". I use the term "OF" instead of "ON" because it isn't so much about eradicating drug use as it is about controlling the sources, distribution, and profits -- two prime examples being (a) US Marines guarding Afghani poppy fields from the Taliban, and (b) Obama's "Fast & Furious" program -- guns shipped south to favored drug cartels, drugs shipped north, and profits funneled through the Wall Street banksters. The USA stopping being a free market capitalist society long ago, devolved now into crony capitalism, primarily for the multinational corporations. One favored group is the Medical Industrial Complex -- Big Pharma that couldn't stand open competition (like cannabis), and Big Medicine, who pillages patient/victims for perpetual cancer treatments that kill them while impoverishing them. Finally, the only expanding job market has direct ties to the War OF Drugs, War OF Terror, and Police State -- Obama's only successful jobs program.

We are doing http://famousgreenteas.wordpress.com/ famous green teas in China and bountiful information on the production areas, the particular characteristics of each type and how every type of tea is definitely processed.

I hate to point this out, but how do we know this happened? The attorney's name is nowhere to be seen. The locality is not named. The defendant is not named. The prosecutor is not named. The judge is not named. I know there have been some cases of juries refusing to convict, but this can hardly be cited as one of them.